The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1927. RIPARIAN RIGHTS—THE BLUE NILE PROJECT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19993, 9 November 1927, Page 8

The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1927. RIPARIAN RIGHTS—THE BLUE NILE PROJECT

An interesting situation in regard to international relations is raised by the action of the Abyssinian Government in contracting with an American firm to build a barrage across the Blue Nile. The British Government claims that the proposal runs counter to a treaty made in 1902 between itself and the Abyssinian Government, and that the matter is regarded seriously is indicated by a report that it may be taken to the League of Nations for settlement.

The seriousness of the position lies in the fact that such a dam as proposed would undoubtedly affect the seasonal rise of the Nile on which so many of the people of the Soudan and Egypt depend for the irrigation and fertilisation of theii’ lands. True the White Nile and the great tributary stream, the Atbara, will not be affected, but the barraging of the Blue Nile would probably lower the level of the annual inundation by anything from 20 to 30 per cent., which may mean all the difference between success and failure so far as the Egyptian and Soudanese crops are concerned. Why the British Government entered into the treaty and why it regards the proposed breach of its so seriously can, therefore, be easily enough understood. The damming of the upper waters of a stream has frequently caused trouble betwen adjoining landowners—instances of the kind have not been unknown in this country. But while a Government can control such a matter within its own jurisdiction, it has no rights over the Government of an adjacent country, if the latter choose to shut off the water supply. Only a treaty can settle that. Perhaps an outline of the English law as it affects rivers within England may be of interest as showing how the matter is regarded when occurring within national bounds.

Riparian proprietors, i.e., the proprietors of land on the banks of a stream, have certain rights and also certain duties in respeet of the waters of the stream. Each such proprietor has the right to the use of the water for domestic purposes or for stock, but he is not entitled to restrict the right of other proprietors to the same use. He is entitled to have the water of the stream flow down to him in its natural flow, without sensible alteration in its volume or quality, but he must also allow it to flow down to the proprietor below him in the same manner. He may build a breastwork to protect his bank, but it must not be built to throw the current upon the opposite bank so as to injure it. He may build a power dam across a stream, but such dam must not prevent the free flow of water and the water used for power purposes must be restored to the stream so that it may pass on to the proprietor below in its original channel and at its natural level.

All of which means that, while a riparian proprietor may barrage a stream, the barrage must not prevent the flow or the volume of the water. He may not cut off the supply from the proprietor below, or even diminish it. If his dam merely delay the passage of the water, well and good; but if it impound the water, he comes within the law. The common sense, not to say the equity, of such a law will be plain to all. But, of course, such law applies only to proprietors within the same jurisdiction. When the “proprietor above” is in one country and the proprietor below” in another, there is no protection whatever for the man downstream if the other fellow choose to cut off his supply. And that is just what the Abyssinian project proposes. The proposed dam will not restore its waters to the Blue Nile. On the contrary, the water is to be impounded and sold for irrigation or power purposes. And the cutting off of the Blue Nile’s supply may so affect the annual Nile inundation that it may result in the ruin of the Egyptian fellaheen.